What is your opinion on Lady Gaga?

[prodigalson2011]

Well her message says that being gay is okay. And the church agrees with that. But its when they have gay sex is when its a problem. She is not saying “go have gay sex”, shes just saying its okay to be gay, to be different.

I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but you’re living in a dream world if that’s what you think. After reading through the links provided a few posts back, I now have a much fuller understanding of Lady Gaga’s agenda. Contrary to what I said, she does have a message and it’s not good. As for your claim, I think this pretty well refutes it:

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/11/AR2009101101892.html

But that’s not what’s frightening about her message. Her blatantly anti-Christian, neo-Pagan “everybody do whatever you want and nobody judge anybody else” fantasy world is. She is advocating a return to societal chaos. It just happens that supporting gay marriage and societal acceptance of the gay lifestyle is a necessary part of that vision.

 

[rfournier103]

My honest opinion is that I thought she was hysterical on SNL when they worked her into the sketches. I actually think she missed her calling and should have been an actress instead.

More honesty… I really don’t care for her persona, or her politics. Or her music, for that matter. It will be a cold day in Hell when I allow an entertainer or athelete to influence my personal life or serve as a ‘role model’ for how I should live.

Charles Barkley said it best; “I am not a role model.”

Lady Gaga isn’t on my radar. That should tell you all you need to know about my opinion of her.

 

[Crescentinus]

So? The CC accepts that people are born gay too. At least that’s what I’ve read on here.

Not exactly.
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Source: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM
Note: emphasis mine.
The thing is, the origins of same-sex attraction as behavior within people with SSA are unknown. The Catholic Church acknowledges this perfectly well. Some like Lady Gaga argue that they are born that way. Some don’t. The debate continues on that subject.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

Not exactly.
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Source: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM
Note: emphasis mine.
The thing is, the origins of same-sex attraction as behavior within people with SSA are unknown. The Catholic Church acknowledges this perfectly well. Some like Lady Gaga argue that they are born that way. Some don’t. The debate continues on that subject.

Why hasn’t God revealed to us if they were born that way or not? Shouldn’t he? It would be nice to know, because if it was a choice, then we know that it can change. If its not a choice then people wouldn’t be trying to go to those ex-gay camps or whatever they’re called. And yes I know those camps are not of the CC, but it would definitely be nice to know if its a choice or not. I don’t think it is, but then again I don’t know everything.

 

[PatriceA]

My honest opinion is that I thought she was hysterical on SNL when they worked her into the sketches. I actually think she missed her calling and should have been an actress instead.

More honesty… I really don’t care for her persona, or her politics. Or her music, for that matter. It will be a cold day in Hell when I allow an entertainer or athelete to influence my personal life or serve as a ‘role model’ for how I should live.

Charles Barkley said it best; “I am not a role model.”

Lady Gaga isn’t on my radar. That should tell you all you need to know about my opinion of her.

I agree with this.

I really don’t give her much thought because she’s not an entertainer I take seriously. There are much better female musicians out there to spend my time and money on.

 

[prodigalson2011]

So? The CC accepts that people are born gay too. At least that’s what I’ve read on here.

Actually, the Church position, as well as the scientifically respectable position of any honest psychologist, is that the origins and causes of homosexuality are not known. There is pretty good evidence it might be caused by very early (between the ages of 1-3) developmental influences from parents, etc. The “born that way” argument is one that is made to try and close the debate on whether or not it is purely genetic, and therefore silence those psychologists and others who want to see if there are environmental factors that may contribute to it, and thus whether it may be treatable.

 

[Crescentinus]

Why hasn’t God revealed to us if they were born that way or not? Shouldn’t he?

To which I respond, God has His own time when it comes to revealing it. Maybe not now.
My point is, patience is a virtue.

 

[SilverLight]

She mocks Jesus and the Catholic faith. She promotes very heavily homosexuality. I am not sure what book you are using that just defines evil as only someone who kills someone else. i don’t see her as against abortion. There is more to “evil” than just killing. She promotes the false idea that we all just need to be free and do what we want. The fans who follow her nearly worship her. Her humanitarian efforts and causes are mostly to promote homosexuality and so called “sexual freedom”. pretty sad if you only define evil as just physical killing. You can “kill” yourself doing the things she support and endorses and that is spiritual killing and will not lead you to God.

Ok but I like one or 2 of her songs and I don’t worship her thats just stupid and I do believe in god but I don’t put other people down with harsh words but that’s just me and killing is bad and so are alot of other things.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

To which I respond, why hasn’t God revealed to us what is the cause(s) of SSA?
My point is, patience is a virtue.

Oh come on now. I think that Jesus should of said whether it was a choice or not.

I think if people knew that they could change, or that it was a choice, there would be less confused people. It sure would have saved lots of debating time. At least in the church. Of course someone of a different belief or lack of (atheists) can think what they want. They aren’t part of the church anyways so their opinion really doesn’t matter when it comes to whats a rule or belief inside the church.

 

[SilverLight]

My honest opinion is that I thought she was hysterical on SNL when they worked her into the sketches. I actually think she missed her calling and should have been an actress instead.

More honesty… I really don’t care for her persona, or her politics. Or her music, for that matter. It will be a cold day in Hell when I allow an entertainer or athelete to influence my personal life or serve as a ‘role model’ for how I should live.

Charles Barkley said it best; “I am not a role model.”

Lady Gaga isn’t on my radar. That should tell you all you need to know about my opinion of her.

Same why should I care about them my life is mine not theres.

 

[Khalid]

Pardon but in my book Somone is evil if they kill Somone or along those lines. She has done none of these from what I know.

Someone is evil, in the broadest sense, if they repeatedly blaspheme and promote mortal sin, lead souls in to perdition, and largely promote evil.

 

[Khalid]

Why hasn’t God revealed to us if they were born that way or not? Shouldn’t he? It would be nice to know, because if it was a choice, then we know that it can change. If its not a choice then people wouldn’t be trying to go to those ex-gay camps or whatever they’re called. And yes I know those camps are not of the CC, but it would definitely be nice to know if its a choice or not. I don’t think it is, but then again I don’t know everything.

But God has revealed it - when Paul lists those who will not inherit the Kingdom of God, and lists homosexuals, he lists them alongside thieves, drunkards, fornicators, idolators, adulterers, etc. - all things that are done by force of will (sometimes with conditioning of environment, as in idolatry, fornication, drinking, but never can environmental conditioning abrogate freedom of the will - not even Calvin believed such), are are not innate traits. It is unreasonable, and out of place, on levels both textual and theological, that Paul would juxtapose innate traits with sinful acts of the will, as would it that God himself would condemn a man to Hell for his innate traits - such as skin color - instead of his freely-willed acts, such as fornication, idolatry, homosexuality, or thievery.

A drunkard may become an alcoholic by genetic or environmental predisposition, and eventually lose almost all of his free will to the drink: but he still has the free will to not take a drink in the first place. The disease-process is initiated solely by an act of the will; it can not begin on its own, as an “uncaused cause” unto itself. Once the disease-process is started, one loses most control over it, but it is started by an act of the will. One chooses to get type 2 diabetes by becoming obese, which is performed through repeated acts of the will: after one has diabetes, continuing the disease is no longer a choice - an act of the will can not effect an exit as efficiently as it effected an entrance.

If you want the empirical view (empirical evidence isn’t worth the paper the statistics are printed on: if you want to know the number of teeth in a horse’s mouth, meditate on first principles and consult the ancients, just like the apocryphal story of the Scholastics), if even one seemingly-homosexual man can become heterosexual, sexual orientation was a choice, at least for that man, which proves that at least in some circumstances, homosexuality is a choice.

 

[Khalid]

Oh come on now. I think that Jesus should of said whether it was a choice or not.

Also note that the concept of “homosexuality” as we know it today wasn’t even dreamed of in the philosophy of men until the time of Oscar Wilde - 1900 years after Jesus Christ was crucified.

Of course, Christ could have said (and sounded like Nostradamus), “The time will come when these two Greek words are combined to mean ‘sodomy’, and men choose to be sodomites: and this is an abomination and sin”, just as he could have said, “The mustard seed is the smallest of your seeds, and, amen, amen I say to you, that the energy [explains concept of energy] contained within it is equal to the mass of the seed multiplied by the speed of light [explains wave-particle duality, the cosmological constant] multiplied by itself”.

Whether for better or for worse, those wouldn’t be any of the logia that the Apostles actually remembered and passed down either orally or in writing: they’d have been quickly forgotten as an embarrassing moment, or written down right before Mark has Mary proclaiming that Jesus had lost his mind.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

Khalid- if it is so obvious that homosexuality is a choice, then why is there debate about it in the church?

 

[Khalid]

That’s beyond me. Everything is debated in the Church - even things we know to be perfect truths or blatant lies. Papal infallibility (Kung), the simulated ordination of priestesses (Catholic Womenpriests), abortion (Catholics4Choice), even the virgin birth (Brown), the reality of miracles (Brown), the nature of creation, the reality of original sin (Fox), and so on - if one steps outside of the visible Church to the entirety of the Body of Christ, everything is debated, down to the very Trinity itself, without anyone actually rejecting it. It’s one of those things where even if men like to debate it, or intellectually reject it, they still must live as if it were true.

That it is obvious is obvious, and is obvious - excuse the convoluted language - to anyone who will look at the reasoning or evidence, Biblical, theological, philosophical, psychological, or empirical.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Khalid- if it is so obvious that homosexuality is a choice, then why is there debate about it in the church?

For what it’s worth, I had an old friend who claimed to be gay by choice. He had no problem performing heterosexual acts, but he enjoyed homosexual activity more.

Groups like Queer by Choice also complicate the debate. I wouldn’t presume to say that all homosexuals choose their preference, but I can testify to knowing at least one flagrantly gay man who claimed to be gay by choice.

 

[PumpkinSeed]

For what it’s worth, I had an old friend who claimed to be gay by choice. He had no problem performing heterosexual acts, but he enjoyed homosexual activity more.

Groups like Queer by Choice also complicate the debate. I wouldn’t presume to say that all homosexuals choose their preference, but I can testify to knowing at least one flagrantly gay man who claimed to be gay by choice.

Well I just went on that site and read quite a bit, and I don’t know what to say.

Basically on that site it says that they can choose it either through one day literally getting up and choosing it, or they can choose it by being more drawn in to it through choices or environments they’ve been in through life.

That surely doesn’t seem to help the gays who claim they had no choice in the matter.

 

[uni_embrace]

I find it really sad how ironically unempowering so much of the “girl power” movement in the entertainment industry is. Between the cosmetic procedures, the oversexualization, rejection of gender roles, etc., they are effectively alienating many girls from their true womanhood and helping to dismantle the family, and consequently our society, as well.

Also, I added to my post since you last read it. Since you agree with what I wrote already, thought you might agree with this as well:

Yes I also agree with the added part. I actually like much of the 1990s ground breaking industrial music.

 

[bearer]

In response to the OP, I think Lady Gaga is a talented sideshow freak. Lots of potential, little class. When you think about it, that’s the mainstream entertainment industry in a nutshell.

If I did like her music (which I don’t), I would probably avoid listening to it anyway. I find her art to be incompatible with my values.

 

[ASmallManagerie]

I believe that most of what she does she does just for attention, and that she could do so much better. If you look up videos of her pre-Gaga days, she actually has quite a bit of talent. I’m not sure if the ‘statement’ she’s trying to make now is that if you’re eccentric enough people will like it, or if she’s just taking advantage of that because she knows it works. I don’t know how much of an act what she does now is, but she’s pretty savvy.